6-26-09 6:24 • What is truth?
Moki: Is there a secret to life? What is it?
Half of life is just showing up.
The other half is every one being glad you did.
Moki:I'm sharing that, do I give you credit?
The first half is traditional, the second is mine so far as I know. Use it as you please. :)
Joan: What is truth?
That is a traditional question, but it is one which doesn't seem to lead to useful answers unfortunately. It turns out proving something true about reality is extremely difficult and very prone to error. To kind of sum up the issues, with truth there are endless possibilities for mistake and self delusion and no way to know when you arrive.
"How do I know what is not true?" turns out to be a much more productive question. It still requires effort, but only a single instance of falsehood is needed to know something is wrong. By testing as many pertinent questions as possible you man not end up with TRUE, but you do end up with true enough for everything you can think of. In short, the bits which are actually true will survive any test by fire but what is false cannot withstand scrutiny.
An example is Newton's laws of motion. It turns out they weren't exactly TRUE, and Einstein and Bohr had to come up with truer descriptions of how things behave under certain extreme conditions. But Newton was so true enough that we still use him for all normal calculations.
So "what is truth?" seems beyond our capacity to know but knowing "what is not true?" has proven good enough.
1-31-09 1:14 • Love and Empiricism
Paul: God could be real! Not everything real can be "proved." What about love?
Love can certainly be shown to exist.
Paul: What do you mean, you can show that love exists? Only if you believe that all things can be proven mathematically by empirical measurement.
If it is actually a thing, it can be observed at least indirectly by its interaction with other things. If it is even just a pattern it can be shown by how the things which compose it are arranged.
Love, for example, has many well-known observable effects on the person. Particular behaviors, changes in hormone levels, activation of various areas of the brain.
Even the concept of god can be traced to seizures in the temporal lobes and various drug or other purposefully induced altered states.
But god as actual object with it own existence and agency? Despite millennia of searching...there is nada. Making up a bunch of myths and worshiping them doesn't cause there to be a god. Nor is it reason to begin thinking there is evidence for considering there to be a god.
In particular, the lovely thing about a being with agency is you don't have to have any doubt. I for example can actively grab you and say "here I am." I'm not a passive object like a rock that you must draw your own conclusions about.
BTW, math is not empirical, it is rational. You have axioms, theorems and proofs. Empirically you start with observations. For "proofs," you make demonstrations so what you are showing can be observed. If you want to give some one empirical evidence that you love them, you show them that you love them through your actions. If you want to be clinical about it you could video you behavior, analyze it, take blood samples through out the day and run some MRIs and compare it with other people who are in love to precisely show that when she is around you, you definitely react as a person in love.
Oh, saying "I can't prove X therefore there is reason to believe Y" is a logical fallacy.
All god has ever been is a myth used by the priests for their own benefit.
1-28-09 1:20 • Moral Assertions
Robert: Moral assertions (e.g. Torture is wrong) are also unproven facts.
It depends on what you are saying.
If you are saying actions have results, this is not hard to prove. If you say the cultivation of torture by the leadership of a country results in the act of torture within the enforcement structures and this results in the alienation of the populace who suffer from the torture and those who sympathize with them; and this suffering is so intense it can start to destabilize the country. These are things which can be checked.
If "wrong" actually means something then yes a claim can be verified.
Buddhist morality is based on compassion and sympathy for those who suffer. "Wrong" means causing suffering. The mean to achieve this, like in science, is based on an understanding of how things work (called the Dharma) which includes an effective means of implementation: do the things which result in what you seek and avoid those which result in what you don't want (which comes from an understanding of cause and effect called Karma).
Over the millennia, observation, trial and error have resulted in some basic guidelines to keep one out of most trouble until one is up to speed on their own: don't hurt others, don't lie or steal, don't misuse sex or intoxicants.
These aren't "god's laws." They are just sage advice.
Robert: How can you bring up Buddhism if you don't believe in anything spiritual? Buddhism is a spiritual belief.
There are no necessary spiritual beliefs in Buddhism, though certainly Buddhists may choose to have spiritual beliefs if they care to.
The core of Buddhism, the three marks of existence (suffering, impermanence and no soul), four noble truths and eight fold path are devoid of spiritual belief statements.
Further Buddhism is practice based, not faith based (with a few odd exceptions). Any spiritual claims that pop up must be experientially verifiable through one's personal practice. Anything which is subject to experiential replication and verification is not incommensurate with scientific investigation, even if the initial language to describe the phenomena differs.
Robert: They may not call it God, but they believe in a higher authority.
There is no "higher authority" in Buddhism. The Buddha was just a guy who figured some stuff out like Socrates or Lao Tzu. Even Buddhism itself is likened to a clunky raft to be discarded once it is no longer needed.
Robert: They believe in consequences for ones behavior beyond social response, and consequences beyond ones lifetime.
Buddhists believe in cause and effect, aka karma. Actions have results, but there is nothing supernatural or personal to this. There is no "enforcer" out to get you.
Now are there supernatural explanations and grafts when have accumulated over the ages? Sure its 2500 years old and has survived by accepting local beliefs. So in Tibet it merged with Bon and has a bajillion local gods. The Hindus tacked on rebirth, even though there is nothing to be reborn. People who are metaphorically challenged read the old myths and try to claim because somebody use gods in their story, it must be so. All the classic errors and ignorance can be found if you look. But if you keep looking you'll find their refutations as well.
But the bottom line is the Buddha's teaching was not about the supernatural. In fact if a student thinks they are starting to develop supernatural powers they are admonished to refocus on their meditation until the feeling dissipates and supernatural questions are seen as a distraction.
Simon Anders: Quite simply, you are an atheist, because you believe there is no God or are no gods.
A lack of belief in gods doesn't imply one believes no gods exist.
I for example neither believe gods exist nor do I believe gods don't exist because 1) I find the term "god" void of any discernible definition from which I could even begin to draw a meaningful conclusion; and 2) belief is completely irrelevant to a something's existence.
10-24-08 10:28 • Doctrines of Epicurus
The Principal Doctrines of Epicurus
The four-fold cure for anxiety:
Don't fear the gods; Nor death; Goods are easy to obtain; Evils are easy to endure
1) A blessed and imperishable being neither has trouble itself nor does it cause trouble for anyone else; therefore, it does not experience feelings of anger or indebtedness, for such feelings signify weakness.
2) Death is nothing to us, because a body that has been dispersed into elements experiences no sensations, and the absence of sensation is nothing to us.
3) Pleasure reaches its maximum limit at the removal of all sources of pain. When such pleasure is present, for as long as it lasts, there is no cause of physical nor mental pain present – nor of both together.
4) Continuous physical pain does not last long. Instead, extreme pain lasts only a very short time, and even less-extreme pain does not last for many days at once. Even protracted diseases allow periods of physical comfort that exceed feelings of pain.
Pleasure and virtue are interdependent
5) It is impossible to live pleasantly without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking (when, for instance, one is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly) it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.
Social and financial status have recognizable costs and benefits
6) That natural benefit of kingship and high office is (and only is) the degree to which they provide security from other men.
7) Some seek fame and status, thinking that they could thereby protect themselves against other men. If their lives really are secure, then they have attained a natural good; if, however, they're insecure, they still lack what they originally sought by natural instinct.
8) No pleasure is a bad thing in itself, but some pleasures are only obtainable at the cost of excessive troubles.
Through the study of Nature, we discern the limits of things
9) If every pleasure could be prolonged to endure in both body or mind, pleasures would never differ from one another.
10) If the things which debauched men find pleasurable put an end to all fears (such as concerns about the heavenly bodies, death, and pain) and if they revealed how we ought to limit our desires, we would have no reason to reproach them, for they would be fulfilled with pleasures from every source while experiencing no pain, neither in mind nor body, which is the chief evil of life.
11) If we were never troubled by how phenomena in the sky or death might concern us, or by our failures to grasp the limits of pains and desires, we would have no need to study nature.
12) One cannot rid himself of his primal fears if he does not understand the nature of the universe but instead suspects the truth of some mythical story. So without the study of nature, there can be no enjoyment of pure pleasure.
13) One gains nothing by securing protection from other men if he still has apprehensions about things above and beneath the earth and throughout the infinite universe.
Unlike social and financial status, which are unlimited,Peace of mind can be wholly secured
14) Supreme power and great wealth may, to some degree, protect us from other men; but security in general depends upon peace of mind and social detachment.
15) Natural wealth is both limited and easily obtained, but vanity is insatiable.
16) Chance has little effect upon the wise man, for his greatest and highest interests are directed by reason throughout the course of life.
17) The just man is the freest of anyone from anxiety; but the unjust man is perpetually haunted by it.
18) When pain arising from need has been removed, bodily pleasure cannot increase – it merely varies. But the limit of mental pleasure is reached after we reflect upon these bodily pleasures and the related mental distress prior to fulfillment.
19) Infinite and finite time afford equal pleasure, if one measures its limits by reason.
20) Bodily pleasure seems unlimited, and to provide it would require unlimited time. But the mind, recognizing the limits of the body, and dismissing apprehensions about eternity, furnishes a complete and optimal life, so we no longer have any need of unlimited time. Nevertheless, the mind does not shun pleasure; moreover, when the end of life approaches, it does not feel remorse, as if it fell short in any way from living the best life possible.
21) He who understands the limits of life knows that things which remove pain arising from need are easy to obtain, and furnish a complete and optimal life. Thus he no longer needs things that are troublesome to attain.
Happiness depends on foresight and friendship
22) We must consider the ultimate goal to be real, and reconcile our opinions with sensory experience; otherwise, life will be full of confusion and disturbance.
23) If you argue against all your sensations, you will then have no criterion to declare any of them false.
24) If you arbitrarily reject any one sensory experience and fail to differentiate between an opinion awaiting confirmation and what is already perceived by the senses, feelings, and every intuitive faculty of mind, you will impute trouble to all other sensory experiences, thereby rejecting every criterion. And if you concurrently affirm what awaits confirmation as well as actual sensory experience, you will still blunder, because you will foster equal reasons to doubt the truth and falsehood of everything.
25) If you do not reconcile your behavior with the goal of nature, but instead use some other criterion in matters of choice and avoidance, then there will be a conflict between theory and practice.
26) All desires which create no pain when unfulfilled are not necessary; such desires may easily be dispelled when they are seen as difficult to fulfill or likely to produce harm.
27) Of all things that wisdom provides for living one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.
28) The same conviction which inspires confidence that nothing terrible lasts forever, or even for long, also enables us to see that in the midst of life's limited evils, nothing enhances our security so much as friendship.
29) Among desires some are natural and necessary, some natural but not necessary, and others neither natural nor necessary, but due to baseless opinion.
30) Those natural desires which create no pain when unfulfilled, though pursued with an intense effort, are also due to baseless opinion; and if they are not dispelled, it is not because of their own nature, but because of human vanity.
The benefits of natural justice are far-reaching
31) Natural justice is the advantage conferred by mutual agreements not to inflict nor allow harm.
32) For all living creatures incapable of making agreements not to harm one another, nothing is ever just or unjust; and so it is likewise for all tribes of men which have been unable or unwilling to make such agreements.
33) Absolute justice does not exist. There are only mutual agreements among men, made at various times and places, not to inflict nor allow harm.
34) Injustice is not an evil in itself, but only in consequence of the accompanying fear of being unable to escape those assigned to punish unjust acts.
35) It is not possible for one who secretly violates the provisos of the agreement not to inflict nor allow harm to be confident that he won’t get caught, even if he has gotten away with it a thousand times before. For up until the time of death, there is no certainty that he will indeed escape detection.
36) Justice is essentially the same for all peoples insofar as it benefits human interaction. But the details of how justice is applied in particular countries or circumstances may vary.
37) Among actions legally recognized as just, that which is confirmed by experience as mutually beneficial has the virtue of justice, whether it is the same for all peoples or not. But if a law is made which results in no such advantage, then it no longer carries the hallmark of justice. And if something that used to be mutually beneficial changes, though for some time it conformed to our concept of justice, it is still true that it really was just during that time – at least for those who do not fret about technicalities and instead prefer to examine and judge each case for themselves.
38) Where, without any change in circumstances, things held to be just by law are revealed to be in conflict with the essence of justice, such laws were never really just. But wherever or whenever laws have ceased to be advantageous because of a change in circumstances, in that case or time the laws were just when they benefited human interaction, and ceased to be just only when they were no longer beneficial.
So happiness can be secured in all circumstances
39) He who desires to live in tranquility with nothing to fear from other men ought to make friends. Those of whom he cannot make friends, he should at least avoid rendering enemies; and if that is not in his power, he should, as much as possible, avoid all dealings with them, and keep them aloof, insofar as it is in his interest to do so.
40) The happiest men are those who enjoy the condition of having nothing to fear from those who surround them. Such men live among one another most agreeably, having the firmest grounds for confidence in one another, enjoying the benefits of friendship in all their fullness, and they do not mourn a friend who dies before they do, as if there was a need for pity.
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts/PD.html
10-11-08 10:28 • Lying and Love
Mikenostic: I try not to be brutally honest, but I don't sugarcoat stuff either. Unfortunately, my honesty has gotten me in trouble before.
Me: I see you got a haircut.
She finally realized it was not worth arguing about. Now, if her hair did look bad, I would tell her. I'm not going to lie about something like that.
Here's an example convo with an ex.
She comes home w/ a new haircut (noticeably shorter than before). She stands there expecting me to say something.
Her: (smiling) Uh huh. (the way she is enthusiasticly looking at me, you can tell she is expecting me to comment on it. I don't.)
few seconds of silence....
Her: Well, do you like it?
Me: It's ok. I liked your hair longer.
Her: Well fine then. (and walks off, obviously flustered)
Me: (unpauses the video game I was playing and continues playing the game)
Her: (a few minutes later, comes back into the room) I can't believe you don't like my hair.
Me: (gives her an 'are you stupid?' look) I never said I didn't like your hair. I said I liked your LONG hair better. What part of that eluded your perception?
Look, it's your hair. You do with it what you want. Do you really want to argue about this?
Originally the term implied one was honorable and fair in their dealings as well as truthful, but lately it is more and more just an excuse to justify callousness, like in the haircut example.
My sweety and I are very straight forward in our dealings with each other and we seek to temper that even further with unnecessary kindness.
There is no punishment, no doghouse, no bitch, no bastard, no mean teasing, no revenge, no snarkiness, no sabotaging, no making fun of, or any of that crap.
My sweety is the best. Being honest is something I do to help and because it forms a good basis for the relationship.
Mikenostic: Care to elaborate that? The haircut example was mine.
Justify callousness? Just exactly how did you come to that conclusion?
OK this is how I read what you describe: You see she has a new haircut and she is obviously excite about it and hoping to please you. You initiate the beginning of a comment and then leave her hanging. She tries to prompt you for more and you shoot her enthusiasm down. Seeing her walk off flustered, you let her know just how unimportant she is in your life by going back to your video game. She tries one last time to recover the situation and you insult her.
Just on what you offer here, you come off as a callous jerk with no interest in her besides possibly a convenient lay.
Mikenostic: But I'm not a liar, I never have been, never will be.
OK I'll grant the benefit of the doubt, you aren't a liar.
But are you some one who is a good person to live with?
Truthfulness doesn't mean some one doesn't employ deceit and subterfuge nor does it mean they aren't callous, mean or just uncaring.
Honesty is a starting point, not the ending point.
Mikenostic: And you obviously skipped over the part where I said that while I'm not goign to sugarcoat it, I won't be totally tactless and assholish about it either.
I'm sorry you fail miserably to understand that.
Mikenostic: you are pretty much agreeing with the way that I go about things. It more or less supports the 'haircut example'.
Not as you present it. Your example has you valuing your mere opinion about her hair and your video game more than her. For me that would be a lie because I value my sweety more than my opinions about hair style or some video game.
But it worked out.
You have the video game.
I have my sweety.
Shorty: I don't believe that you don't have punishments or doghouse or name calling.
None whatsoever? Never? Come on now...
As close to none as humanly possible and the rare occasion when it sneeks in we stop it really quick.
She was a bit dubious about my methods right in the very beginning, but got on board fast when she saw how great it works.
We really are a team, each working for the other as best we can.
Shorty: Are you newlyweds or something?
Ten years and three kids.
Shorty: One of you must be giving in most of the time.
Ha! That'll be the day. We both have strong personalities and strong opinions.
Shorty: Let me guess you never argue either? What about disagree, do you at least disagree about things?
Argue is as hot as we ever let it go and that is the signal its time to take a break and maybe take a drive or go for a walk. That happens maybe once a year. I honestly can't think of the last one. Disagreements we just work out. Usually we can find common ground, but sometimes the one who cares least will just let it go.
Shorty: Are you one of these YES DEAR, OK DEAR types?
Neither of us are that way.
Once we were at a friend's party and one of the people said "You two have such strong personalities, how can you stand to live with each other?"
So I told him: "We are really, really nice to each other."
Shorty: Swarm what would you have said if you REALLY disliked her new haircut and she wanted your opinion? I can't imagine REALLY disliking any possible haircut some one might have. I've friends with everything from butt length dreads to shaved with a rat tail. Pink, yellow, orange, purple, leopard print, various shapes, lengths, symmetric and asymmetric. I was just amused when my 3 year old gave herself a trim. I enjoy oddity and variety.
Getting worked up about things like that just isn't how I work, but for the sake of the discussion I would say "wow that's a surprise. Let me think about it for a bit. Tell me what you think about it?" And then I'd try to understand how she sees it and give it some time to sink in. But its her hair and I respect her choices with it and she consults me so its just not very likely.
Mikenostic: Are you serious? Really?
Do not take this too personally. I only have what you are telling me to work with. There is no context or history or side knowledge of either of you as people. Read what you said from my perspective and see if you still don't see how I came to those conclusions.
Mikenostic: We already discussed ad nauseum in the past that I prefer long hair.
Whose hair is it?
My preferences and opinions are not set in stone. They are not the law of gravity. I have tremendous influence over them. It is often the case that something I don't like at first blush grows on me over time. I'm going to at the very least give her time to make her case and let me feelings settle.
You are acting you your opinion is the word of god.
Finally the bottom line is that its her hair, her choice and I respect her opinion. I'm willing to entertain the notion my opinion in this matter could be wrong.
Finally I can think of few things less important to argue over ad nausium. That really sounds like you are being a control freak and trying to dictate her hair styles.
Mikenostic: We both knew she got her haircut for herself, not me.
whose hair is it?
Mikenostic: Am I some one who is a good person to live with? That's honestly a subjective question. I'm sure most everyone is a good person to live with...depending on who the person they're living with is. I don't share your opinion. People who habitually exhibit destructive interpersonal behaviors are not good people to live with and eventually any relationship with them will sour.
Mikenostic: those type of women are highly sought after by men because they get sick of A relationship is both people. The behaviors are interlocking.
Mikenostic: So, while I might be a bit blunt for some, I am fair about it.
Being fair is good in most situations, but it is not sufficient in a long term relationship.
In a relationship you are too close to the other person and too involved personally and emotionally in the decisions to be fair. You just can't be objective and you can't seem objective to the other person. Just being fair will result in hurt feelings and a sense of opposition with each other.
You have to be unfair as often as possible in favor of the other person. Don't sweat the little things. Be magnanimous. This will build a history of trust in each other so that when there is a real sticking point you know the other person is not just in it for themselves. This also facilitates an atmosphere of cooperative problem solving and builds a history of good feelings.
Mikenostic: Being tactfully and respectfully honest is the ending point. At no point should you dishonestly tell somebody what they want to hear. If you tell someone something that is not the truth, you are dishonest; you are a liar. There is no selective lying IMO. It's like being pregnant, you either are, or you aren't; no middle ground. You are pretending everything is a clear cut matter of fact and that you are infallible. This is not the case. You are only dishonest if you are purposefully misleading another. There is also being mistaken. Then there are things which are not cut and dried. Opinions for example. I would recommend broadening your horizons and developing some nuance to your thinking.
Mikenostic: Orly, my longest relationship was just under two years. I probably would have married that girl, but I found out she had fooled around with one of my best friends when we first started dating.
Two years means you've never got past the infatuation stage. Basically you've never had a relationship which lasted past getting to know each other.
I have a very strict policy. My sweety can do what she wants with who she wants. She's an adult and I trust her to do what she needs to.
Shorty: Cool, thanks for the reply. It sounds like you 2 have got the marriage thing figured out pretty good and are good for eachother.
Hug-a-Tree: Should animals be treated as property?
Animals should be treated according to what their relationship with us is.
Prey animals should be eaten and their skins and other inedible parts used efficiently.
Work animals should be treated as work partners.
Companion animals should be treated as companions.
Wild animals should be left wild.
In general, animals should be treated as humanely as possible.
If research is needed it should be done as humanely as possible and preferably on vermin such as rats, mice and rabbits.
And while we are on it, what's up with "vegans" who are always pulling out those nasty meat substitutes. Look it does NOT taste anything like meat, and I know you are a vegan. If I'm eating with you serve me vegetables. I like vegetables! How would you feel is I feed you bleaky fake squash made from sheep intestines?
And what exactly is wrong with animal partner products like eggs and dairy? Cows and chickens are our friends. We've had a nice thing going for milenia. They give use tasty surplus eggs (they are unfertilized and not alive you know) and milk. We keep the wolves and foxes at bay and make sure they make through the winter, etc. Its a really sweet deal and you guys are screwing it up.
Chickens and cows have modified themselves to work better with us. If we dump them we not only are reneging on our deal, they are going to have it really rough.
And look, if you want to give them rights then they have the right to earn their own way and eggs and milk are better than the alternative, being tasty and fitting well.
Now, I can understand you don't want to kill cwute fwuffy bunnies, probably because you've never had to deal with them personally, but don't screw the cows and chickens or you might find a dolphin warship decloaking off your port bow and face a perturbed Cap't Blowie.
James R: All animals have intrinsic value.
I disagree. I find no intrinsic value. Value comes only from being valued by something which knows value.
I would say that birds and mammals seem to have this capacity. Reptiles and below don't seem to.
However, be that as it may, being of value doesn't exempt one from being eaten or dying. But if your predator is sufficiently intelligent, it might get you a nice life before being killed and eaten.
A lot of you seem to be trying to pretend that predation by humans is some how eviler than predation by any other animal. I don't find that there is justification for that.
madanthonywayne: Humans are meant to eat all types of food, including meat.
James R: Trying the 'appeal to nature' fallacy again?
"Meant" as in we evolved eating meat, are able to digest it effectively, have an obvious ability to hunt and eat meat, and predominantly prefer meat as a food source.
Our closest animal relatives, the chimps, also like to hunt and eat meat and are very effective at it, as are any number of other primates. There is even evidence that the development of our intelligence coincides with our increasing our meat eating.
Also meat eating seems to go way back as there is significant evidence of the important role meat eating played for Homo Erectus. (Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model of Adaptive Versatility, Peter Ungar, Frederick Grine, and Mark Teaford)
So "meant" seems an entirely appropriate word.
Now on to your repeatedly misused appeal to nature fallacy.
An appeal to nature is a logical fallacy by which it is argued that because something is "natural" it is automatically morally desirable or "good". Sometimes the argument appears in reverse form: that because something is not found "in nature", it must be morally repugnant or evil.
At what point do I draw any moral conclusions here? No where? Yep, that's right no where.
For good or ill we evolved to eat meat and we like it, just like every other predator/omnivore on the planet. How one implements that predation can be moral or immoral, but the fact of it is the fact of it. And since we have chosen to become top predator, until you replace us with some other predator the killing is absolutely necessary. Prey and predators are interdependent and the environment depends on them being in balance. If you want to see animal suffering and environmental devastation on a grand scale, ban predation.
James R: I say, there's no significant difference between killing a disabled human being because you like the taste of human flesh and killing a cow because you like the taste of its flesh.
One is a cow. One is a human. In most definitions of "significant difference" that is considered "significant." Some of the differences are species and one is a traditional prey animal and the other is not.
James R: What's special about humans that makes them entitled to...
Kill and eat cows? Its called being a successful predator and it is hardly unique to humans.
James R: Species are just different, and race is a different "kind" of human being, in exactly the same way.
No. Different races are fully able to interbreed. Different species, often even different subspecies, cannot.
James R: Do you think that it is in the animal's best interest to kill and eat it?
As a species it has gotten the cow from being just another obscure African ungulate to being the top ungulate of the whole planet. Not too shabby considering they'd be getting eaten either way.
James R: More than 25 billion animals are killed by the meat industry each year, in ways that would horrify any compassionate person.
Apparently not.
Mmm, man now I'm hungry for a slab of meat!
Pandaemoni : It's immoral to feed cats that meaty cat food. Let the cat starve and you kill but one animal. Feed the cat for life and you must sacrifice thousands.
Actually if you let the cat starve, the number of deaths is both increased and they are more horrific deaths and the environment and lives of the remaining animals are degraded.
You can't separate the predator out of the system so easily. The prey which depend on it for population control breed uncontrollably, over graze their food sources and then died of starvation and disease. The ones that manage to live are malnourished, diseased and over-crowded.
Nature doesn't care about squeamish human sensibilities paraded about as "morals."
The predator is an absolutely necessary part of the ecosystem and removing it causes way more death and suffering than is caused by it performing its normal function.
James R: People across the world and across cultures agree that certain acts are wrong, or desirable. Murder is high on that list.
Actually one of the first things you learn in cultural anthropology is that there is no universally prohibited act. Not a single one.
James R: If morals are all subjective, then morality is useless as a way of maintaining an orderly society.
Your conclusion doesn't follow since you don't show that relative morality with consensus is in anyway inferior to absolute morality.
Also, since all people every where disagree on what is moral and what is not, if morality is absolute, we seem to have no access to it or any way of knowing or agreeing on it, so effectively all morality is relative.
Finally you fail to establish that morality is necessary or even of use in maintaining an orderly society. Certainly the Nazis, usually considered very immoral, maintained an extremely orderly society. In fact it could even be argued that an overly ordered society (facist dictatorships, communist dictatorships, corporate dictatorships, theocracies) is actually a very immoral one.
James R: I sacrifice no animals to feed my cat, as things stand. I'm ameliorating the impact of your evil acts as best I can.
Wow, you sure change your morality fast when it interferes with your self interest. You did know that the pet food industry does kill its own animals for it own purposes? They aren't just waste products from other industries. There just isn't really much in the way of actual "waste product" any more.
The blood on your can opener is as red as any one else's.
Drip, drip, drip!
Humans are at the top of the food chain for a reason.
James R: Would you explain to me why you think this?
We can prey on what we please.
Nothing regularly preys on us.
That's how we defined "top of the food chain."
James R: Humans are not allowed to attack or hunt other humans!
Actually that was at one point my profession, though you aren't allowed to hunt humans for food.
James R: So then, do you want an environmental argument against eating meat?
As long as you admit your moral argument trying to justify abolishing meat eating has failed then I have no problem with environmental arguments because they can never be arguments against meat eating per se. I've no problem with balanced meat consumption and ensuring the environment is healthy.
James R: Eating meat is very bad for the environment.
No. Eating meat is build into the environment. Many of our current approaches to it are out of whack, but at a fundamental level eating meat is inescapably part of the environment.
James R: How is species a morally significant difference from a fellow human?
Species is a significant difference in choice of prey. Eating meat isn't a moral question in and of itself. Even the Buddha ate meat.
James R: One problem with this argument is that it ignores the intrinsic value of the individual. By the same argument, it would be just fine to kill you for whatever reason.
Actually it's not for "whatever reason," and people, even myself, are not exempt from the realities of life. If I'm not careful I could be killed and eaten just like any meat. And as nifty as I think I am, there is no guarantee that my survival is best for the species. But the reason you are going for the emotions is because the main problems with my position are that it is valid and true.
James R: You ought to read above where I commented on the kind of crowing about your immorality that you have chosen to engage in along with some of your humane fellow meat eaters.
I did and dude you are so jealous its pathetic! You are the sole reason I'm wanting a thick slab of prime rib now, medium rare, just a touch of blood you know. I normally don't eat much cow.
James R: You said no act is universally prohibited. With your knowledge of evolutionary findings, you must know that this statement is nonsense.
Name a single universally prohibited act. I'll knock off a few standard ones: murder, cannibalism and incest all have cultures which allow them.
James R: You calim the pet food industry uses meat, other than just by-producr. Please provide links so I can verify your claim.
http://www.naturapet.com/brands/evo.asp
"uses whole, fresh meat sources such as turkey, chicken and herring meal!"
If you see the word "whole", then it is not diverted by-products. Also by-products are supposed to be labeled as such, if it is labeled as "chicken" instead of as "chicken by-products" then it is meat and could be used for human consumption had it not been diverted. "Chicken meal" is basically the whole chicken ground up. Quality companies distinguish organ meats from non organ meats. Finally "premium" brands often make a point of using "human" quality meats, particularly for cats.
Oh, the "not for human consumption" is applied after it gets to the pet food company. We have plenty of products which use meat by-products. Potted meat, hot dogs, sausage, the ultra cheap meat in pizza and burritos, etc. There is nothing a cat can eat that a human can't.
But all that is beside the point. Morally you are partaking in the feast at the corpse and paying the piper. I find it tremendously hypocritical that you make exceptions for your cat while condemning your fellow man. The meat your cat eats is no less a chicken and the money you pay still wends its way back to the slaughter house.
10-09-08 10:28 • Enlightenment
Grantywanty: Can humans reach enlightenment?
yes.
Grantywanty: How did you reach this conclusion?
practice.
Baron Max: is there nothing else to strive for?
more practice.
Baron Max: Is that the end of all human endeavors?
no more or less than before.
Baron Max: "enlightenment" needs a whole lot of defining
Defining, while a fun pastime, is unfortunately irrelevant.
Enmos: Well, if that's true how can we ever answer the question?
Practice.
cosmictraveler: Enlightenment comes only after you have lost your fear of death.
There is not any particular necessary or sufficient condition nor is there a lack of necessary and sufficient conditions. Practice helps, but even that is not a final answer. Sometimes it is stop practicing. But practice more first so that in the mean time you will be cultivating a virtue.
Wisdom Seeker: Enlightenment comes when you stop identifying yourself with your body and personality; enlightenment is disidentification.
It is so absolutely blisteringly simple and easy that smart people babble all manner of odd stuff to make it harder. Practice and find out is the only way to get a valid answer to when it comes for you.
cosmictraveler: I'd agree but losing fear is the key I would think.
There are a number of fun side effects. I would say not making more fear than you need to, but I can be a bit pedantic.
Klippymitch: How does one know when he has reached the stage of enlightenment?
Pay attention.
VitalOne: First when I did ... I achieved that voidness, nothingness state. Then after practicing more ...I achieved the bliss ...after I practiced ...then truly the greatest happiness emerged.
Wonderful example of karma. practice/achieve, more practice/more achieve
Some people get caught up in what they should practice. Just practice. Practice meditation like VitalOne, or practice tea, or practice discipline or practice thinking or practice nothing.
VitalOne: When you destroy ALL your insecurities, impulses, destructive thoughts and feelings, etc...then you achieve the highest perfection.
Absolutes are just more traps. There is nothing to destroy. There are as many insecurities, impulses, destructive thoughts and feelings, etc as you care to make. It is thinking that you must destroy them which causes you to make more so there is an object for your destruction. Even highest perfection is a trap, an unobtainable idea. Just stop and it all goes away. The real secret you are already doing - practice. It is the goal that is the illusion.
Enmos: I am not afraid of death, but I do fear a painful process of dying.
Meditation provides basic volitional control over heart rate and respiration as well as the ability to mediate pain response. It requires a bit of time investment and discipline. 15 min a day, every day, for about a year would get you a decent start. But you will be able to check out under most any circumstance which you would actually be aware of.
For mechanically assisted suicide CO seems to be the most effective readily available source for most people. You can also use water, though it can be tedious. Drink at least a gallon in a 30 minute period. You'll know you are close when you start feeling "intoxicated."
John 99: Isn't loving everyone and every living creature enough to be considered enlightened?
No. Loving everyone and every living creature is loving everyone and every living creature.
John 99: BUT look what happens when you do?
You mean being very happy with a life saturated with love surrounded by happy people loving you back?
greenburg: A complete cessation of suffering.
A complete cessation of suffering, aka dukkha, in Buddhism can be confusing. It doesn’t mean that you never feel pain or never know loss. It is more that you stop creating imagined hardships for yourself by giving up wanting what is not, hating what is, lusting after ill ways, cultivating ignorance and other such nonsense. Instead you cultivate a good lifestyle, compassion for yourself and others, and develop your insight, focus and balance. Or in a nutshell do what works well for all, avoid ill ways, learn to tell the difference by practicing and paying attention.
Myles: How will you know that you have arrived at a point where you are seeing the world as it truly is
You don’t bump into stuff unexpectedly so much.
Myles: My understanding of the Pali canon, mainly by reading commentaries and talking to two Buddhist monks, is that it teaches "anatta". That is, it denies the existence of.
Literally “no soul.”
Myles:So how do we learn to love, etc., what does not exist ?
Has no independent self been a hindrance so far?
The study of Buddhism can be a big hindrance to the realization of Buddhism. All this time you’ve been learning to love without an independent self. Someone tells you anatta and suddenly you are wondering how you do what you’ve been doing all alone without effort.
What does not exist are all the parts of you that are not this right here right now.
Myles: If we stick with your idea of a Lego house, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT CEASE TO BE A HOUSE ?
There is no inherent “houseness.” Anything ceases to be a house when those who know what a house is no longer know it to be a house just as it becomes a house when those who know what a house is know it to be a house. Yes there can be disagreement and overlap.
Myles: Each day a philosopher removes a single hair from his beard. At what point does it cease to be a beard ?
Never. The rate of extraction is less than the rate of regrowth. But if he was making a more strenuous effort it would cease to be a beard when those who know what a beard is no longer know he has a beard and yes there can be disagreement and overlap during the transitional phase.
Grantywanty: As you have pointed out elsewhere some Buddhists tend to view the self as mythological. They find no consistant quality over time.
Just to pick some nits, I think it would be more accurate to say one’s concept of oneself is mythological, a good word for it BTW, and Buddhists find no inherent/independent quality over time. Decay would be the consistent quality over time, though these days they might use entropy instead.
Grantywanty: So, did the Buddha just cease to exist after attaining his complete enlightenment? At a glance that seems a little pointless. After, as in after about fifty years, since according to the story he clued-in in his 30s and died in his 80s. Everyone ceases to exist. It’s the before that which is interesting.
Grantywanty: Are you enlightened?
What makes you think you understand something you have not experienced? Or are you saying YOU are enlightened?
Can't you tell?
later...
“
greenburg: But what you describe is not the extreme end of finding one's way, namely, complete uniqueness and difference.
I don't see that finding one's way necessitates complete uniqueness and difference beyond the personal uniqueness and difference of being yourself and not someone else. For example I found my own way to the summit of Mt Rainier, but it wasn't completely unique and different from those who went before me, with me, or after me. My understanding is that finding your own way is more about taking responsibility for your practice.
greenburg: But spiritually maturing people will be very careful about what they discuss and with who and where and how.
Yes, some people become timid, some are quiet, some are secretive, but others are not. You should be careful about confusing maturity with style.
greenburg: I think that unless one is very unhappy, or very proud, or has an exceptional thirst for knowledge (demonstrated by, e.g. daily studying hundreds of pages and limiting all their other human functions), or is simply attracted to God or the Buddha, one will not have the necessary faith to pursue enlightenment, nor will one have the necessary strictness in the way they do it.
There are a number of issues here. First dukkha is endemic to the non enlightened state. Every one already is suffering sufficiently to stop. There is no need to suffer more first, indeed it would be cruel to turn someone away with “your pain isn’t great enough to be helped.” Instead the compassionate stance is to help anyone who wishes to stop suffering if you can without personal bias about the quality or quantity of their suffering.
Second, while there are certainly those who use faith, I find faith a hindrance. I prefer to test things for myself and personally find something’s worth. When something works as describe, it is apparent and no faith is needed. When it doesn’t, all the faith in the world won’t change things. But that’s again just a matter of style.
Finally one should not confuse monasticism with practice. “Strictness” has no more to do with it than anything else. Ferocious struggle and harsh discipline can be as much a hindrance as a deliverance. It really depends on who you are and what your personal hang ups are. Ikkyu is a good example of this. It is a middle way of enough discipline, enough laxness, enough but not too much or too little, but monasticism is usually not this for your average person.
greenburg: I am pointing out that it is important to be honest about what one really wants and is willing to do.
I think you are caught up in the notion that it is hard, requiring great effort, astounding intellect, etc.
It is not. That is just what some people throw at it before they realize it isn’t that at all. It is easy. It is just the right effort as things align because you stop making everything harder than it has to be.
greenburg: Frankly, most of us are still much too well off, too complacent, too lazy and too easy to distract...
Start with who you are. You don’t have to be someone you aren’t before starting.
greenburg: ...to take up a serious spiritual practice that...
So take up an unserious spiritual practice.
greenburg: ...makes every moment of life a matter of life and death.
There is nothing that “makes” every moment of life a matter of life and death. Every moment of life already is a matter of life and death.
greenburg: Perhaps then, somewhere along the way, we might become serious.
Why wait?
VitalOne:nice post swarm
Thanks.
Myles: Swarm, you sound like the kind of person who sedates himself with lots of meditation and acts how you think that someone who is enlightened is supposed to act.
I act how I am and I am how I act.
But is this sort of personal attack really needed?
Myles: From the totally unhelpful comments you make about what it is to 'journey' to this state of being, it sounds like you think enlightenment is some kind of state that people achieve only through practice and over a period of time. All that is utter rubbish.
I don't think you have understood what I've been saying. For example, I didn't say that it was a 'journey,' a state of being or that you find it only through practice and over a period of time. Grantywanty said, "Can humans reach enlightenement?" I said, "Yes." He said, "How did you reach this conclusion?" I said, "Practice."
You seem to be wanting me to say what you think I ought to be saying instead of what I am saying.
Myles: There is no time in reality, there is no individual and 'everyone' is already 'enlightened' - there just needs to be a re-congnition of that.
Some people definitely approach it that way.
Myles: Calmness is not an indication of enlightenment.
” I don't recall saying it is or it isn't. Are you perhaps confusing calmness with equanimity?
But since the topic is at hand, I would class appropriate calmness is always a good sign of right understanding and equanimity.
Myles: To me the idea that you have to practice to be achieve what you already are is nonsense.
So practice something else.
Myles: Enlightenment is nothing more than ordinary awareness - it is already there.
So why get so excited and competitive about it?
Myles: time is a concept, it doesn't actually exist.
So why worry about it?
Really you have some good words, but you don't seem to know them in your bones.
Practice is a nice place to start because even if you must turn else where, or were done before you started and just didn't know it, you still have been engaged in a virtuous activity and that is a good basis for living.
And it doesn't have to be meditation. Pick what works best for your needs.
But just because I like it doesn't mean you have to. Go with what works. This isn't a competition.
Myles: You just said again that practice is the way you achieved enlightenment!
No I did not.
I said I came to my conclusion that humans could reach enlightenment through my practice.
Myles: I say, you are not enlightened if you say that is what got you there.
I have not said I was enlightened. I said answering such a question yes or no is pointless. Either the other person can tell or they can't. If they can there is nothing to say. If they can't it doesn't matter what you say.
Myles: You are buying into cause and effect!
Aka Karma.
Myles: While we unenlightened people may still buy into the notion of time, a person who re-cognizes his/her true essence would never say such a thing.
How do you know this?
Myles: Practice implies time for it is only by doing it over time that you claim it happened for you and that is utter nonsense.
” Practice is just practice. If you are being flooded with implications you are thinking instead of practicing. Just refocus on what you are doing and don't worry about the time.
Myles: you said that you were coming to an understanding.
Sure.
Myles:if you are coming to it, then you are still buying into the idea of separation and time.
No, I am just coming to it. Your implicator seems a bit hyperactive. Also, remember we disagree on non dualism. Apparent separation is no more an issue for me than apparent oneness. Not one, not two.
Myles:I also could see that you were trying all the while to maintain this 'together' persona by being ever so diplomatic in your replies like nothing could phase you.
No. I'm just being who I am.
Myles:It's okay to be pissed off - those who recognize their true essence display the same variety of behavior as do those who do not - it is not an external thing, it is a knowing equanimity that may or may not change the way one behaves.
You are misunderstanding something. Enlightenment doesn't make you other than you are. You just stop pretending you can pretend you aren't who you are. It doesn't mean you stop maturing or growing. It just means you don't make those processes harder or easier than they actually are. But I'm not ever going to meet your standard of behavior. That is for you to do.
But don't worry, I'm fully functional.
8-28-08 8:28 • Crossroads of Religion
Knowbody: What i don't understand, Swarm, is why you take pleasure in insulting whatever spiritual path other people are on, if it doesn't happen to be your own. If you think I cut Buddhists or atheists or whatever any slack for their BS you are gravely mistaken.
Also we seem to have varying opinions of what is insulting. I feel your position is insulting and demeaning to anyone of even passable capacity for reason. There is nothing about Mohammad that makes me think his opinion is worth pursuing about anything. You have yet to show me that you understand any allah, yet you insult me by acting like I should swallow any old pap you care to put out on the topic. The koran is not interesting reading or even particularly intelligible even for abrahamic sacred texts. (Though it is by and far more fun to read than the sutras. Your average sutra makes a paint drying festival seem like fun.)
But I try not to let it bother me because I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and so I don't think you are purposefully trying to be insulting and demeaning. I would hope you would be willing to extend the same benefit of the doubt to me.
Knowbody: You may view yourself as some sort of Zen pull-away-the-covers person...
I don't. I care about truth and I enjoy a spirited discussion. I've long, as in decades long, had an interest in the esoteric, in spiritual technologies and in wisdom. There are sufis who can actually produce results and results are something I respect even when I'm dubious about the explanations.
But empty claims and book waving is not anything I respect.
Knowbody: Your approach lacks compassion.
I'm sorry but I didn't realize you were in particular need of my compassion. If you are suffering and in need, let's speak of that first. If you are not, then don't seek to excuse your beliefs from scrutiny by trying to confuse compassion for the person with sheltering the empty claims the person makes.
Knowbody: i would be more apt to really ask you (and want to experience) what it is that you have to share, if you had a bit more humility and respect for all walks of life and for all belief systems.
Ask. But don't ask if you just want me to be you, giving your answers in your way.
Knowbody: This tribe titled 'crossroads of religion' could be a meeting place where different paths converge and enlighten and educate one another about their unique perspectives and subsequent rituals or lack-thereof.
This is what that looks like. It is happening right now. We have different paths and we are each trying to "enlighten and educate one another about their unique perspectives and subsequent rituals or lack-thereof." Why are you bitching about my difference instead of embracing it?
Knowbody: You have been doing this for years! What is the point, really?
A person who reads the same book over and over for years has to ask the question? At least here the cast and topics change. The point is we enjoy it.
Knowbody: I wish you would realze your statements are not fact, they are just opinion.
Why is it whenever the religious find them selves in a corner they start claiming everything is "just opinion?" Doesn't that make the whole concept of your religion being of any importance moot? The things I value aren't "just opinion."
Ashleigh: Love is so hard! It's like a boiling pot...it's hot and uncomfortable because it's hard to tell what will come out next. ( especially if we are repressing a bunch of stuff within ) . Love is authenticity, what is more authentic than loving whatever comes up? Love highlights the yucky parts of being human, so it can be expressed and healed. Love is hard because it means fully dealing with what is, not what we want, not what it "should" be. Dealing with reality is hard. Because it is often not what I want . Everyone I have loved has been difficult to love at several points.
I'm still looking for easy love. I hope I find it.
Love is too complex to be just easy or just hard. Every relationship has bumps just like every life does.
Being easy going and unnecessarily kind goes a long way toward smoothing those bumps out.
J Timothy: Love, too complex? How could it be?
People in general love complex relationships. There are even some scientists who theorize that this is what drove our development on large brains more than anything else.
J Timothy: What I find to be complex is psychology and ego...not love.
J Timothy: I find love to be simple and selfless. Not concerned with setting boundaries, but breaking them... Love is freedom; to be, to express, to exalt, to celebrate...each other and life. To have no weight, no worry, no burden...to rely upon and be relied upon. To carry and to be carried...even carried away. Those are all nice and part of it but just part. And I'm not so into dictating what love must be. I like finding out from experience.
J Timothy: I am there to meet the needs of my significant other. Period. And if she is there to do the same...it all works out. Wow, so rigid. Period. We like more give and take. We can each cut the other slack when there is need.
J Timothy: Love, when it is real, makes these tasks effortless. Not difficult. Very simple. E-A-S-Y...!
Some things I do not because they are effortless, but because they are hard.
élan: When you find someone with whom you "fit" like a glove, there are no games, manipulations, power struggles, etc...that is when love feels "easy".
I enjoy a very satisfying and loving relationship and we are about as game-and-manipulations-free as it comes. Enough so that it pisses her mom off when we don't play.
Does that mean "there are no games, manipulations, power struggles, etc.?" Please! We are human and as subject to error as anyone else. The difference is not that these tendencies are magically not there because we love each other. It is that we work to avoid going there in there first place, recognize when we are headed that way and stop. We let each other know directly the things people try to gain from those processes. It takes practice and like any thing which requires practice, you are going to fail from time to time.
Love is something you do together and like anything else you do with another it takes some learning and nurturing.
J Timothy: I'm not rigid. I am just there to meet the needs of my significant other. Period.
The problem with this is that the creation of needs is effortless and the number of needs endless, but your partner's abilities require effort and their patience is finite. All needs are never met. In fact many needs will be unmet and some of them need to be unmet. Which brings us to two of the key relationship killers - whining and grudges.
If some one creates petty needs and whines about them they are creating resentment in themselves and their partner.
If either holds that resentment then grudges will form.
If grudges are held then the love will die. It's only a matter of when and it's going to be messy.
Here's an important creed to keep in mind:
***I am responsible for my needs. Helping with the needs of another is a gift. The giver is the one who should be grateful.***
That sequence works and works well, but it is not how people usually do things.
If you understand it and do it, you will flourish in any relationship.
J Timothy: Required effort and finite patience are NOT attributes conducive to love, even the conditional kind.
And yet they are inescapable aspects of life.
J Timothy: So, what if you are wrong? What if love is simple?
"What if?" "If only?" "Could be?" "Should be?"
I prefer what actually is. I'm complex. My sweety is complex. Our love is complex.
J Timothy: It isn't rocket science, dude. Then why bother?
Just because you say so?
J Timothy: If your patience is limited, and you require certain efforts in regard to yourself...this somehow makes your experience universal? And so, your blanket statements become justified? In what way? How? Why? To whom?
No. Because I'm a finite being and all of my resources are finite. Patience, strength, intelligence, life span, wisdom, size, weight...every single aspect of my existence is finite, even those which are not fixed.
J Timothy: If your patience is limited, and you require certain efforts in regard to yourself...this somehow makes your experience universal?
I'm as human as the next guy, in this case you.
J Timothy: And just how do you prove to me that what YOU say is what actually IS, and what anyone else says actually IS NOT?
Oh like this is something that requires difficult proof.
You just go on being as deluded as you care to. You can walk through walls too. The trick is to get a running start.
J Timothy: Maybe complexity SHOULD NOT be part of love. Or maybe you should not impose yourself on the rest of us...
OK, what part of "I prefer what actually is...our love is complex" is talking about you? Hmm. Could it be you are just trying to shut my voice up because I'm not falling in line?
J Timothy: There is NOTHING real outside of your own head...and what is inside it is perception, not reality. So keep your reality and I will keep mine.
Sure, and since that is true you won't mind anything I do will you? If you have a perception of me slapping your face and laughing well you should be more careful of your perceptions.
7 Huna Principles:
Pay particular attention to principle number one.
J Timothy: Don't you know about the Huna Principles?
1. The world is what you think it is.
2. There are no limits.
3. Energy flows where attention goes.
4. Now is the moment of power.
5. To love is to be happy with (someone or something).
6. All power comes from within.
7. Effectiveness is the measure of truth.
1. The world is what it is. What you think it is matters only to you and the more your perception differs from what is, the more what is will smack you down.
2. There are limits even to people's stupid claims that they have no limits.
3. Mental energy is attention.
4. Now is the moment of your existence.
5. Being happy is to be happy. Trying to make happiness dependent "with (someone or something)" is a sure fire path to suffering. Love is something which can be done with others.
6. Power comes from many sources and this sort of power should not be confused with the power physicists refer to. Your limit is your understanding and your ability to to apply that understanding. All such power corrupts.
J Timothy: By inference, you are saying that anything simple is not worth anything...or worth the effort.
You need to work on your inferences some more. A famous painter who was known for his simple elegance was once asked how he did it. His advice was first to master complexity.
J Timothy: because love is worth whatever I decide it is worth to me.
Because everything is all about you after all.
Leslie: number one, "the world is what you think it is" is pretty clear, i think -- and it is the most profound, and most simple, universal truth there is.
Its great if self-delusion is your standard for universal truth.
Leslie: sorry, don't understand what you want to say, swarm.
The world is not what you think it is. What you think the world is, is just what you think the world is.
What the world is, is what the world is not matter what you think of it.
The misalignment of those two is a measure of your self-delusion.
Leslie: Well, if people are jaded and cynical, they look and see that "the world" is out to get them...
The world itself has no intention. If you think the world is out to get you, you've missed.
Leslie:...and so they are drawn to those experiences, or interpret experiences as fitting their model of the world... That can happen, but that is them, not the world.
Leslie:...the world becomes what they think it is.
We each have the power to influence the world around us to a degree, but it is our actions motivated by our thoughts, not just our thoughts.
Does your art spring into being just because you think of it? Or do you have to make it?
Leslie:you talk about your and your sweetie sharing the belief that love takes focus and intention...
Actually focus, attention and action. But not just any, specifically being nice and kind to each other above and beyond the call of duty.
Leslie:each person's job is to make the other happy...
No, it is not my job to make her happy. It is not even my job to make me happy. My happiness is my responsibility. If it happens or doesn't happen there is no one besides myself to praise or blame. Contributing to each other's happiness is a gift and opportunity we give each other.
Leslie:in order to have a great relationship.
A great relationship is not dependent on happiness even as it creates many opportunities to enjoy it.
Leslie: ... and it sounds like a great relationship.
I wish you could know the half of it.
Leslie:do you think maybe it works because you share a belief that it will... that your view of the world is that way, and therefore it is.
More because we have our view and work to achieve it in ourselves and the world so that it becomes.
Leslie: you're the one who said that if someone's view doesn't agree with "what is" then "the world will smack you down"
Yes, I was being poetic.
Leslie: i'm talking about each person's conception of "reality"
The world I'm talking about is that which they are forming conceptions from and of. Our experiences may be personally colored differently but they are of the same world.
If I hand you a drink you notice and can reach out, make intelligible inquiries about it, manipulate it in useful ways and get it back to me if I ask for it. If I hold out a wholly private experience of a drink you don't notice it at all.
Leslie: How do you decide whose reality gets to be called "the world" for you, and whose gets called "a delusion" and why.
There is no "whose." If you need it in more personal terms, what is real is that which requires no belief on your part and what is unreal is that which is sustained only by your belief in it. We are between those and can sometimes shift were the line gets drawn through our actions and creativity.
Leslie: physical reality is just one level of perception...
If you can't get the first level right, everything else is wrong too.
Leslie: ...even that changes from person to person.
Everything changes, but the first error comes in presuming that you are the sole source of all changes.
The second error is in presuming changes in perception means changes in the underlying reality instead of changes in your understanding.
The third error is in thinking because we all have our own perceptions and understandings that the fundamental reality is also correspondingly personal and unique to each.
Leslie: you can hold out a drink to me that you think is the most delicious thing in the world, and i can perceive a glass of unpalatable sludge.
This is where over emphasizing conditionals like "might," "could," "what if," etc. is trouble. It might happen that way but what *actually* happens is I hold out a glass of water and you perceive a glass of water.
Leslie: what is the reality?
A glass of water is a glass of water. Reality is the end state.
Leslie: you can hold out an entirely imaginary drink
And we all know it is imaginary.
Leslie: Some of us live on a beautiful planet, surrounded by remarkable people, and some of us live in a world that is about to self-destruct, surrounded by ugliness and paranoia.
Beautiful and ugly, good and evil, are *perceptions* of the world, not the world itself.
There is no "whose" reality. Reality is not owned by any one. However if you wander around with serious misconceptions about reality, like that you can run through solid objects, reality will metaphorically "smack you down" when you actually try running through solid objects. In reality it is actually you causing your own problems by trying to force your misperceptions on the world. Sorry for the confusion there.
Read more in the Archives.